Chris Cillizza’s The Fix blog at The Washington Post presents itself as a political reporting blog, not an advocacy blog. It purports to be journalism in a blog format.

That distinction in the mainstream media, of course, really doesn’t exist in the newsroom or the blog sections. Except for blogs or bloggers who expressly are labeled “right wing” or “conservative,” one can assume a pro-Obama, pro-Democratic Party bias. (And even the “conservative” bloggers are suspect, if you know what I mean.)

I’ve never had much of an issue with Cillizza’s blog; while I don’t claim to have studied it carefully, when I have read it I did’t notice anything more than the usual implicit bias which exists throughout WaPo. (FYI, that’s a compliment.)

One of Cillizza’s co-bloggers, Aaron Blake, had one of those clarifying moments on Twitter today, in which that implicit bias was revealed explicitly. Blake called for help from others on Twitter to find material Blake could use against Newt Gingrich:

There were a number of appropriate responses, including these from Ace:

The Washington Post selected Jennifer Rubin as their “Right Turn” blogger, which to many has seemed like the wrong title. It should be “Romney’s Turn.” But when the Post publishes her blogs in excerpted form in the newspaper, they’re making her even sharper in attacking the “hard right” of the Republican Party.

In Monday’s paper, Rubin lashed out at the New Hampshire Union Leader’s endorsement of Newt Gingrich by slamming the entire conservative media as “embarrassingly bad.” The Post’s gleeful headline is “Conservative media blow another story.” But any nuance she placed in this attack on her blog was edited out by the Posties.

Comments

Their goal is to get Democrats elected, their method is to destroy Republican candidates. They simply choose not to investigate D’s at all, and when a D scandal appears they ignore it as long as possible and then, if they must report it, they do so in as favorable a manner as possible to the D and in a way that they know will be seen/heard by as few people as possible.

The internet helps enormously. Fox News and Conservative talk radio have a big influence as well. But, all 4 Networks (yes, including Fox) broadcast socialist propaganda thinly disguised as news, and most of the major newspapers are thoroughly left-wing.

“Now that Newt Gingrich​ has become the latest in a series of Republican front-runners, he is getting the kinds of scrutiny and attacks that have done in other front-runners.

One of the issues that have aroused concern among conservative Republicans is that of amnesty for illegal immigrants, especially after Gingrich said that it would not be “humane” to deport someone who has been living and working here for years.

Let’s go back to square one. The purpose of American immigration laws and policies is not to be either humane or inhumane to illegal immigrants. The purpose of immigration laws and policies is to serve the national interest of this country.

There is no inherent right to come live in the United States, in disregard of whether the American people want you here. Nor does the passage of time confer any such right retroactively.

The usually sober and thoughtful Wall Street Journal, on issues other than immigration, outdoes Newt Gingrich’s claim that it would not be “humane” to deport illegal immigrants who have been living here a long time. A Wall Street Journal editorial says that it would be “psychotic” to do so.

“No one honestly believes the government should or will mount a nationwide manhunt to deport millions of people,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

What we have today is virtually the opposite of that. Cities that openly proclaim themselves “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants put their own policemen under strict orders not to report illegal immigrants to the federal authorities, with the result that illegal immigrants who have committed crime after crime are free to stay here and commit more crimes, including murder.”

So tell me which of the candidates is going to deport every single person in the country illegally without exception? Bachmann and Romney agreed with Newt before they disagreed with him. Perry gives them a tuition discount. Since you constantly fill the comments with lengthy anti-Gingrich posts, I think it’s time for full disclosure on your part. Who are you supporting?

Are you asking which candidate would, in fact, deport every single illegal immigrant, or are you asking which of these candidates La Raza and other Progressive organizations will paint as pro-deportion of every single illegal immigrant?

No candidate in their right mind is going to come out and declare for 100% deportations. Every candidate is going to be smeared with that charge regardless. The irritation comes into play because none of the voters who, on the morning of the election in 2012, will decide that immigration is an important policy are paying attention right now.

IMO, Mr. Sowell is looking for a candidate who will support enforcing the rule of law as is found in the Constitution and the USC.